G.R. No. 120365 - People vs. Que

Case Summary (G.R. No. 120365)

Key Dates and Procedural Milestones

Apprehension and seizure: March 8, 1994.
Charging: Information filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Laoag — June 23, 1994.
Trial proceedings and testimony dates referenced in the record (TSNs): December 2 and 8, 1994; February 8, 1995.
Supreme Court decision: appeal resolved by affirmance (decision rendered by the Court of Appeals or RTC judgment affirmed; appeal dismissed and trial court decision affirmed).

Applicable Law

Section 68, Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 705 (Revised Forestry Code), as amended by Executive Order (E.O.) No. 277 — penalizes (a) cutting, gathering, collecting or removing timber or other forest products without authority, and (b) possession of timber or other forest products without the legal documents required under existing forest laws and regulations; authorizes confiscation of timber and equipment.
Constitutional standard for searches and seizures: Article III, Sections 2 and 3(2) of the 1987 Constitution (right against unreasonable searches and seizures; inadmissibility of evidence obtained in violation).
DENR Administrative Order No. 59, series of 1993 — prescribes documentary requirements for movement/transport of forest products, including the Certificate of Lumber Origin (CLO) and supporting documents.

Factual Background

Police received prior information that a ten-wheeler truck (plate PAD-548) loaded with illegally cut lumber would pass through Ilocos Norte. On March 8, 1994, police patrolling General Segundo Avenue observed and followed the described truck, apprehending it at Marcos Bridge around 1:30 a.m. The truck carried coconut slabs on the sides and top; sawn tanguile lumber was concealed beneath those slabs. Three persons were on board: the driver Wilfredo Cacao, appellant Que (identified by the driver as owner of the truck/cargo), and an unnamed person.

Post-Apprehension Admissions and Documentary Evidence

Upon initial contact, appellant admitted to officers that sawn lumber were inserted among the coconut slabs. When asked to produce transport or origin documents for the lumber, appellant failed to present any of the documents enumerated by the officers (certificate of lumber origin, certificate of transport agreement, auxiliary invoice, DENR receipt, forest ranger certification regarding origin). Appellant did, however, present a CENRO certification authorizing transport of coconut slabs from Sanchez Mira, Cagayan to Urdaneta, Pangasinan. Appellant later produced PLTPs issued to Cayosa and Sabal claiming the tanguile came from those PLTPs and were given to him as payment for hauling services.

Examination, Inventory and Value of Seized Items

At 10:00 a.m. on March 8, 1994, police together with three CENRO personnel examined the cargo and confirmed it contained coconut slabs and chainsawn tanguile lumber concealed under the slabs. CENRO inventory and scaling recorded 258 pieces of tanguile lumber with a total volume of 3,729.3 board feet (8.79 cubic meters) and assessed value of P93,232.50. Inventory and scale sheets were prepared and signed by DENR personnel.

Information, Trial and Conviction

An Information was filed charging appellant with violation of Section 68, P.D. 705, as amended by E.O. 277, for possessing 258 pieces of chainsawn tanguile lumber without the necessary permit, license or authority. Appellant denied guilt, asserting legal acquisition (via PLTPs of Cayosa and Sabal) and contesting admissibility of the lumber as fruits of illegal search and seizure and of an uncounselled custodial admission. The RTC found appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt, sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, ordered confiscation of the lumber and the truck, canceled bail bond, and imposed costs.

Assignments of Error on Appeal

Appellant argued three principal errors: (1) statutory: that conviction under amended Section 68 was improper because E.O. 277 criminalized mere possession but did not specify which documents would legitimize possession and no other laws or regulations then required specific documents; (2) constitutional search and seizure: that the lumber were the fruit of an unlawful search and seizure and therefore inadmissible; (3) custodial rights: that evidence included uncounselled custodial admissions in violation of the constitutional right to counsel.

Statutory Construction and Documents Required for Possession

The Court rejected appellant’s strained interpretation that “existing forest laws and regulations” meant only those in effect when E.O. 277 was enacted. Instead, the Court construed the phrase to mean laws and regulations in effect at the time of possession. Under this construction, DENR Administrative Order No. 59 (1993) — which post-dates E.O. 277 but was in force at the time of the possession — specified documentary requirements for transport/possession of lumber, including the Certificate of Lumber Origin (CLO), company tally sheets or delivery receipts, and lumber sales invoices as supporting documents. Appellant could not produce a CLO or equivalent supporting documents for the seized tanguile when apprehended.

Character of the Offense: Two Distinct Provisions in Section 68

The Court clarified that Section 68 prescribes two distinct offenses: (1) unauthorized cutting, gathering, collecting or removing of forest products from forest land or public land; and (2) possession of timber or other forest products without the legal documents required under forest laws and regulations. For the first, the accused may defend by proving legal authorization for the cutting or removal. For the second (possession without documents), legality of the source is immaterial; possession without required documents is a malum prohibitum offense consummated by mere possession without proper papers. Thus, even if the lumber had been legally cut un

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 120365)

Facts of the Case

Two weeks before March 8, 1994, SPO1 Dexter Corpuz, member of the Provincial Task Force on Illegal Logging, received reliable information that a ten-wheeler truck bearing plate number PAD-548 loaded with illegally cut lumber would pass through Ilocos Norte.
Members of the Provincial Task Force conducted repeated patrols in the vicinity of General Segundo Avenue in Laoag City in response to that information.
On March 8, 1994, at about 1:00 a.m., SPO1 Corpuz together with SPO1 Zaldy Asuncion and SPO1 Elmer Patoc posted themselves at the corner of General Segundo Avenue and Rizal Street. Approximately thirty minutes later they observed a ten-wheeler truck bearing plate number PAD-548, followed it, and apprehended it at the Marcos Bridge.
Three persons were aboard the truck at the time of apprehension: driver Wilfredo Cacao, accused-appellant Wilson B. Que (identified by the driver as the owner of the truck and cargo), and an unnamed person.
SPO1 Corpuz inspected the cargo and observed coconut slabs loaded on the truck. Accused-appellant told SPO1 Corpuz that sawn lumber had been inserted between the coconut slabs.
SPO1 Corpuz requested cargo supporting documents from accused-appellant: certificate of lumber origin; certificate of transport agreement; auxiliary invoice; receipt from the DENR; and certification from the forest ranger regarding the origin of the coconut slabs. Accused-appellant failed to present any of these documents for the lumber.
Accused-appellant did present a certification from the Community Environment and Natural Resources Office (CENRO), Sanchez Mira, Cagayan, which certified legal acquisition of the coconut slabs and permitted transport of those slabs from Sanchez Mira, Cagayan to San Vicente, Urdaneta, Pangasinan; the certification was dated March 7, 1994 and valid up to March 11, 1994 or upon discharge at final destination.
SPO1 Corpuz brought accused-appellant to the Provincial Task Force office at the provincial capitol. There, accused-appellant again admitted that sawn lumber were under the coconut slabs.
At about 10:00 a.m. on March 8, 1994, members of the Provincial Task Force together with three CENRO personnel examined the cargo and confirmed it consisted of coconut slabs and chainsawn tanguile lumber; the coconut slabs were piled at the sides of the truck, concealing the tanguile lumber which were placed in the middle.
CENRO personnel inventoried and scaled the seized forest products: 258 pieces of tanguile lumber with a total volume of 3,729.3 board feet (8.79 cubic meters) and a total assessed value of P93,232.50 (valued at P25.00 per board foot).

Procedural History

On June 23, 1994, an Information was filed in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Laoag, charging accused-appellant Wilson B. Que with violation of Section 68 of Presidential Decree No. 705 as amended by Executive Order No. 277, alleging possession with intent of gain of 258 pieces of tanguile lumber without necessary permits, valued at P93,232.50.
Accused-appellant pleaded not guilty and defended by asserting lawful acquisition of the lumber from holders of private land timber permits (PLTP) and by raising evidentiary objections to the seized lumber on the grounds of unlawful search and seizure and uncounseled custodial admission.
At trial, accused-appellant offered PLTPs issued by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) to Enrica Cayosa and Elpidio Sabal, claiming the tanguile lumber came from the PLTP-covered forest areas and were given to him as payment for hauling services.
The trial court found accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt, sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, ordered confiscation of the 258 pieces of lumber and the ten-wheeler truck (Plate No. PAD-548), cancelled his bail bond, and imposed costs. The dispositive portion of the trial court decision was penned by Judge Perla B. Querubin.
Accused-appellant appealed to the Supreme Court, raising three assignments of error challenging: (1) sufficiency and construction of Section 68 as amended by E.O. 277; (2) admissibility of evidence seized in alleged violation of constitutional protection against unlawful searches and seizures; and (3) admissibility of evidence obtained in violation of his constitutional right to counsel during custodial investigation.

Relevant Statute and Administrative Regulation

Section 68, P.D. No. 705 (as quoted in the record), provides in part:
- Any person who shall cut, gather, collect, remove timber or other forest products from any forest land, or timber from alienable or disposable public land, or from private land without any authority, or possess timber or other forest products without the legal documents as required under existing forest laws and regulations, shall be punished with the penalties imposed under Articles 309 and 310 of the Revised Penal Code...
- The Court shall further order the confiscation in favor of the government of the timber or any forest products cut, gathered, collected, removed, or possessed, as well as the machinery, equipment, implements and tools illegally used...
DENR Administrative Order No. 59, series of 1993 (as cited), specifies documents required for the transport of timber and other forest products, including:
- Section 3 (Documents Required): movement of logs, lumber, plywood, veneer, non-timber forest products and wood-based or nonwood-based products/commodities shall be covered with appropriate Certificates of Origin issued by authorized DENR officials.
- Section 3.3 (Lumber): Unless otherwise provided, the transport of lumber shall be accompanied by a CERTIFICATE OF LUMBER ORIGIN (CLO) issued by the CENRO or authorized representative which has jurisdiction over the processing plant producing the lumber or the lumber firm authorized to deal in such commodities. To be valid, the CLO must be supported by the company tally sheet or delivery receipt, and in case of sale, a lumber sales invoice.

Trial Court Findings of Fact and Credibility Assessments

The trial court found beyond reasonable doubt that at the time